A dimmer vision of a postcapitalist future
This is the first in a series of three posts about one of Peter Frase’s Four Futures, exterminism. The purpose of this first post is to discuss the basic idea behind Frase’s Four Futures, and dig into the events that could possibly lead us to an exterminist future. Lastly, please note that I do NOT believe that we will see this future or live in this type of world. In fact, I envision a much brighter, more prosperous future. I am merely examining the circumstances and the chain of events that could lead us there, or anywhere else for that matter.
The four pillars of capitalism have been mentioned time and time again: hierarchy, coercion, extraction, and scarcity. In his book, Four Futures: Life After Capitalism, author Peter Frase expands quite a bit further on two of these pillars: hierarchy and scarcity.
Scarcity or Abundace — or Both?
At the beginning of the book, he brings up the two primary arguments as to why capitalism will falter within the next 100 years — climate change and automation. In a postcapitalist world, or what Frase simply refers to as “life after capitalism,” the author points out that we could be living in a world of both abundance and scarcity, if that is even possible! First, he mentions that with automation and robotization, we could see a fully automated economy — an economy that produces everything we need with absolutely zero human labor. On the other side of the spectrum, climate change will bring about dearth — the depletion of natural resources, a major shortage of agricultural land, a lack of habitable environments, “and ultimately the demise of an Earth that can support human life” (Frase, 2).
So, there you have it: extreme scarcity in a world of abundance. Or perhaps it’s the other way around?
The Future of Hierarchical Systems is in Our Hands
Next, Frase compares the predicament to another capitalistic pillar: hierarchy. When automation dominates the workforce, that means that, in time, all human labor will be obsolete. In my mind, this puts everyone on a level playing field. But it begs the question, “who will oversee the factories and industries, despite an entirely automated workforce?” Well, good point — probably someone in today’s 1 percent (in America): the elite. One idea points to the possibility that automation can be perfected so that corporations and businesses can run smoothly with no human interaction whatsoever — I’m thinking specifically about artificial intelligence. However, if in some way, we allow today’s 1 percent to transition into yet another position of power, we will still have a hierarchy in that the person (or group of people) who oversees the robotic workforce will rise to the top of the ranks. And according to Frase, the only way to avoid another hierarchy in the future is to address this class struggle today.
Here I have outlined another spectrum where equality sits on one edge, and hierarchy sits on the other.
A Model for Four Different Futures
Frase lays the foundation for the overall theme of his book by explaining that “…the model posits that we can end up in a world of either scarcity or abundance, alongside either hierarchy or equality. This makes for four possible combinations, which can be set up as a two-by-two grid” (Frase, 29).
Within those four empty quadrants, seen in the image above, Frase describes four different futures, each one possessing either equality or hierarchy, abundance or scarcity.
“The existence of capitalism as a system of class power, with a ruling elite that will try to preserve itself into any possible future, is therefore the central structuring theme of this book, a theme that I believe is absent from almost every other attempt to understand the trajectory of a highly automated postindustrial economy. Technological developments give a context for social transformation, but they never determine them directly; change is always mediated by the power struggles between organized masses of people. The question is who wins and who loses, and not […] who has the ‘correct’ view of the objective nature of the world” (Frase, 30).
To account for a defensive ruling elite and a highly automated society, Frase suggests the following model for our four, possible futures:
For this series of posts, I am going to focus on the most daunting of the four futures: exterminism. I’m sure most readers already know the fundamental truths of communism and socialism, but if you have never considered, or heard of rentism and exterminism, I suggest reading Frase’s Four Futures: Life After Capitalism book, or checking out Anthony Signorelli’s critique of Frase’s text. As I mentioned above, this series will give you more insight into exterminism, but I do recommend finding a full synopsis of this scenario to help you realize its horrific potential (wow, that sounds like some excellent advice, doesn’t it? Ha!).
Capitalist Principle of Interdependent Relationships
If exterminism belongs in the hierarchy-scarcity quadrant, I’m sure you can well imagine what our world might look like. As it is today, our society will still be split into the haves and the have nots, where those who have reap the benefits of living in a world of scarcity. Not only will the haves maintain their access to these scant resources, but they will continue to capitalize on the ever-increasing prices that the have nots must pay for scarce necessities. This scenario is already blatant in today’s economy, but we have not yet run out of resources; therefore, scarcity is not yet our main issue. However, by way of capitalism’s third pillar, extraction, we are well on our way to a more profound, exterminist economy.
Near the beginning of the exterminism section, Frase mentions one of the strengths that capitalism offers: the relationship between the elites (the “haves”) and the laborers (the “have nots”). With capitalism, it is obvious that laborers depend on the elites to provide them with work, thereby a paycheck and a standard of living. But many tend to forget that a capitalist relationship goes both ways — elites need those laborers to produce the goods and provide the services.
“It was that interdependence, in fact, that gave hope and confidence to many socialist movements of the past. The bosses may hate us, the thinking went, but they need us, and that gives us power and leverage over them. In the old labor and socialist standard ‘Solidarity Forever,’ the victory of the workers is inevitable because ‘they have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn, but without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.’ With the rise of the robots, the second line ceases to hold” (Frase, 123).
A Failing System
Here, Frase draws our attention to the fact that the old capitalist relationship is deteriorating, and in many ways, it no longer exists at all. Let me share three reasons as to why I, personally, think that relationship is diminishing:
- First, the gap between the elites and the laborers is too astronomical for this relationship to work. Essentially, there are too few elites and far too many laborers. While strikes and protests can have some impact — particularly for skilled trades or those that are part of the labor union — the elite are well-aware that there are thousands of unemployed workers who would gladly fill any vacant positions.
- Second, hierarchy within corporations, specifically, is slowly becoming an afterthought. Don’t get me wrong: there certainly is, and probably always will be a hierarchical structure within corporations, but it is evolving. Staff members are veering away from the advice of their superiors and they confer with their peers who work in other corporations for advice or for brainstorming. Staffers prefer to work alongside someone who has the same responsibilities, the same rank, even if this person works in an entirely different company or even industry. This shift does make sense; however, because these corporate employees no longer look to, or work in harmony with their superiors or their subordinates, we see the hierarchy shifting into more of a network, which is much harder
- And third, the rise of automation, digitalization, robotization, and artificial intelligence is causing a major stir in the capitalist system. A capitalists’ main goal is to increase profits by decreasing the cost of production. The elites have already realized that robots and automation, though pricey to implement, pay for themselves in a very short amount of time. Robots don’t need a bi-weekly paycheck; they aren’t going to negotiate for health and dental insurance; and above all, they will never request a day off. Robots create these products, and the elites only have to consider maintenance costs and the price of raw materials. Payroll for human workers takes up a huge chunk of a company’s gross profits, but when that expense is eliminated, the company owners can keep that portion of the profit. In my opinion, this should lower the cost of goods manufactured or developed, and in some cases, it will. But you mustn’t look past the greed and power that manifests itself in much of the elite population.
So, once automation and robotization dominate the workforce, we will have a mass of people who have no source of income, while the very small population of elites continue to rake in more money — probably more than they’ve ever collected in the past. And this is our hierarchy. We see bits and pieces of it today, but not to this extreme, not yet.
And It All Leads Us Here…
Naturally, if the mass of unemployed laborers cannot afford to buy the products manufactured by the elites and their robot workforce, the price of these goods will go down. Remember, we’re still part of the capitalist system, even if we’re on its sharp edge. But, when the chaos of climate change takes hold and our earth’s resources are almost entirely depleted, prices will rise once more, whether the mass of laborers has the means to pay for those goods or not. Because the resources that are used to produce goods are scarce, there will be a limited number of very high-priced goods. Thus, the rich continue their ascent into a gross pool of wealth, and the mass of laborers continues to go without — but this time, they go without the necessities (i.e. food, clothing, toiletries, shelter, basic comfort items). There is nothing that those in poverty can do but revolt against the elites. Fearing this revolt, it is possible that some of the elite will chose to distribute their own wealth to the masses through social welfare programs. However, this route increases the chances that the elite will be exposed to the scarcity issue. Worse yet, it could cause the masses to increase their demands, insisting on fair and even distribution of wealth. Fearing expropriation, the elite may instead opt for a more abysmal route, one that Frase outlines in depth — the actual act of extermination.
“So what happens if the masses are dangerous but are no longer a working class, and hence of no value to the rulers? Someone will eventually get the idea that it would be better to get rid of them” (Frase, 124).
Check out next week’s post to read some of my specific arguments as to what could potentially lead us toward an exterminist future.